the author of a new study, robert rector, it's deja-vu all over again. we can go back to 2007, kennedy, mccain and the heritage foundation with a study and the number was $2.5 trillion. >> right. $2.7 trillion. the analysis i did and everybody agreed with was only the retirement costs now i'm doing pre-retirement and post retirement and government is 40% big are. it's unbelievable and that is why this bill is going to cost a fortune. >> lou: i have n thought of it the way you cast it between now a 2007 when immigration, comprehensive immigration reform legislation was rolled back. 40% bigger in just about six years. it's incredible. there is something else going on that is fast a nate go to me. as you put forward this study, cato, the americans for tax reform, i'm talking about strong vibrant voices. the club for gwth, you go through it and americans for tax reform and the american action forum, doug's outfit, they say you are wrong and couldn't be wronger. he has numbers. inste of what youre concluding youreported it would reduce the deficit by $2.5 tri

. >> lou: robert rector and it is your response to his response. here is robert. >> egan has numbers, in fact of what you are concluding in your report, he says it would reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion. >> i spent six mons preparing this report. it's about 80 pages long. the appendix it describes the methodology of what i did is over 30 pages long. anybody can look in every detail of my analysis. mr. egan doesn't have a study or report. he has a press release about a study he might do. he has provided about a page and a half of information. >> lou: how do you respond to that? >> well, say brevity is the soul of wit. what we looked at was the difference between the typical immigration scenario and what the census called a high scenario. we reported the facts on labor force participation, higher than native born, business start-ups by immigrants, higher than the native born. then it's just arithmetic. >> lou: let me ask you something. what is the correlation between, college degrees and advanced degrees and employment levels. is there one? >> the

we will be talking with the co-ahor of the report, robert rector with us next. ♪ lou: the senate judiciaryommittee completing its first day marking the gang of eight legislation, dismissing a number of measures that do with border security, another issue the committee failed to focus on is the cost of amnesty. our guest has de the math on precisely that issue and says it amounts to a net fiscal deficit of over $6 trillion. joining us, the author of a bar owner study, robert rector, senior research fellow at the heritage foundation. and it is deja vu allver again, robert. this is -- we look back to 2007, kennedy and mccain and the heritage foundation now with a steady. as i recall what was that number? about two and half trillion dollars. >> right. the analysis that i did in 2007 was basically only on the retirement costs. now i am doing both pre retirement and post-retirement. you know what has happened? government is 40% bigger. it is unbelievable. and that is why this bills going to just cost an absolute fortune. lou: kennedy was rollback. 40 percent bigger and just about six years. it i

robert rector makes this point. and i quote. at every stage of the life cycle, and he's referencing that of the legal population today, at every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants on average generate fiscal deficits, that's benefits that exceed taxes, and they generate fiscal deficits, unlawful immigrants are always tax consumers, they never once generate a fiscal surplus that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. the situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty. that, mr. speaker, is the bottom line on the rector report. that's the economic analysis, i know that there is a competing analysis out there, i would submit that that competing analysis, which i've read, inflates the term legal and illegal an calculates the economic benefit but not the full cost. this study is a study that has -- it's been through the mill before. the principles that it was founded on have been analyzed before. yes, there will be those who seek to discredit this, but i would say to them, step back, take an

we will be talking with the co-author of the report, robert rector with us next. ♪ the capital one cashards card gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone but her... no. no! no. ...likes 50% more cash. but i don't give up easy... do you want 50% more cash? yes! yes?! ♪ [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash ck on every purchase, plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's the card for people who like more cash. ♪ what's in your wallet? why? and we've hit the why phase... very logical thihinker. (laugh) i'm telling you right now, the girl back at home would absolutely not have taken a zip line in the jungle. (screams) i'm really glad that girl stayed at home. vo: expedia helps 30 million travelers a month find what they're looking for. one traveler at a time. expedia. find yours. lou: the senate judiciary committee completing its first day marking the gang of eight legislation, dismissing a number of measures that do with border security, another issue the committee failed to focus on is the cost of amnesty. our

robert rector, the heritage foundation. a conservative research think tank tasting washington, d.c..-- d.c.dc in watshington, he has three decades of experience. he was heavily involved in crafting the 1996 welfare reform bill and continued to examine the mounting cost of welfare. these focus on fixing the broken immigration system. looking at the long term of the fiscal cost to taxpayers of legalizing 11 million immigrants living unlawfully in the united states. his recent papers concludes that the lifetime deficit created by such a program would be explained $3 trillion. he held a bachelor from the college of william and mary in a masters in political science from johns hopkins. now i would like to turn it over to our palace for brief opening statement.-- to our panelists for brief opening statements. then we will have a discussion about where they agree and disagree on the question of the economic cost and benefits of a immigration reform. >> the basis of my analysis starts from an understanding of the redistributive nat

robert rector just mentioned.let me say one final point had 's study isrector riddled with methodological errors. when you correct them, you reverse his results. one error that i will be happy to discuss with him reverses his results and what his study proves is that immigration reform would be a huge in -- financial boom. exactly the opposite of what he proposes. >> thank you. taylor for allowing me to moderate. i want to open it up for questions and answers. i want to start with a step back. this debate is very much in the here and now. there is a bill that came out of the senate judiciary committee. it is going to the senate floor .ext month i would like for all of you to step back and talk about who has done this well in the past -- whether here or around the world in terms of minimizing economic costs and maximizing economic benefits, and is there anything to be learned by policymakers who are engaged in this debate from that experience that we can look at and apply? >> i would say when you look around the gl

he's the president ofage foundation and today the heritage foundation and senior research fellow robert rectorut a study that illegalizing 11 million illegal immigrants will cost taxpayers a net $6.3 trillion. i mean, that's over the coming deca decade. 6.3, that's the net number. why, according to heritage, the typical, typical illegal immigrant household right now is receiving right now $14,000 a year and more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. but that could jump by their estimate to $30,000 if the gang of eight plan becomes law. more than double. and heritage is a force to be reckoned with. back in 2007, the last time congress debated so-called immigration reform, heritage produced a report on -- an analysis of that plan finding that amnesty would cost taxpayers at least $2.6 trillion. $2.6 trillion. those are the good old days. less than half of what they project as the cost over the next several decades. and so there is going to be great weight given to the study. and, by the way, they'll create opposition. the club for growth and americans for tax reform, two conservative out

the robert rector says in his report and i'm going to quote from it because i think the language is very powerful, and he says, regrettably, let's see, this is the -- many policymakers also believe that because unlawful immigrants are comparatively young, they'll help relieve the fiscal strains on an aging society. regrettably, regrettably, this is not true. now here's where i focused on this, mr. speaker. at every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants on average generate fiscal deficits, and that's benefits exceeding taxes, unlawful immigrants on average are always tax consumers, never once generate a fiscal surplus that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. this situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty, close quote. that -- an irrefutable fact, mr. speaker. there are others that will argue that there's a dynamic economy and you can calculate this growth and dynamic economy. well, they're not calculating the cost to society. they accept that we're a cradle to grave welfare state. i've had this debate with art laffer, who i have great respec

speaker, at 8:00 in the morning, in a members only gathering, robert rector of the heritage foundation will be delivering his report that was released yesterday around 11:00 or so. this report is about 101 pages of which the executive summary is around five. i have read through this, it is definitive, economic data that i believe will be assailed but it's logically unassailable and he says in the document that the at every stage of the life cycle unlawful immigrants on average generate fiscal deficits, that's benefits that exceed taxes, unlawful imgrans on average are consume they never generate a surplus to pay for benefits elsewhere in society. . this situation will get worse after amnesty and if you think the second generation will make up for the first, if they were all college grass they would still have a tremendous struggle to make up the $6.3 trillion deficit that's created by this and expenditures minus taxes collected from this group of people, but only 13% of their children will go to college, so that will tell you how difficult this will be. this is a generational economic

robert rector's study is riddled with methodological errors. when you correct them, you reverse his results. one error that i will be happy to discuss with him reverses his results and what his study proves is that immigration reform would be a huge in -- financial boom. exactly the opposite of what he proposes. >> thank you. taylor for allowing me to moderate. i want to open it up for questions and answers. i want to start with a step back. this debate is very much in the here and now. there is a bill that came out of the senate judiciary committee. it is going to the senate floor next month. i would like for all of you to step back and talk about who has done this well in the past -- whether here or around the world in terms of minimizing economic costs and maximizing economic benefits, and is there anything to be learned by policymakers who are engaged in this debate from that experience that we can look at and apply? >> i would say when you look around the globe that policymakers are increasingly understanding that each modern economy is hi

the robert rector study is very credible, it's very detailed. i've seen no comparable study in terms of the detail of the analysis. and i would challenge anyone who cares about this issue, wherever they're coming from, to put up any other study that can compete with the rector study in terms of detail and analysis. i think currently that is the last and final word on costs of the bill. two final points, mr. president. fifth big concern i have about the bill is i believe this bill is very unfair to legal immigrants and folks who are waiting in line in the legal immigration system now. it puts some people, not everybody who would be made legal, but some people ahead of them in line and really dishonors the fact that these would-be legal immigrants are following the rules now and following the law now. and sixth and finally -- and this is no trivial matter -- i am very concerned that this would depress wages in the united states for many, many hardworking americans, legal immigrants, others who have followed the law, who are working hard in a very,

the benefit of the research that looked at the fiscal effects of unlawful immigration to stop robert rector first report came out a year later, and we had internal discussions about how that should affect our thinking on these issues. like any good think tank or citizen who wants to think about these issues, when your facts change, when the circumstances change, your recommendations and analysis changes. at that time we had called for a comprehensive bill, and what we meant there was that we wanted to address all the problem's of immigration, not necessarily in one bill, but we have seen what conscience is at of what congress has done, what a mess they have made. it's immigration bill was 884 pages in its first iteration. when facts change, our recommendations change. , spring valley, minnesota, independent color. caller: i was just wondering, in 1993, harry reid said it is insane to give welfare benefits to illegal aliens. now the citizenship thing that we have is insane, and nobody is referring to that. i am just wondering why the politicians don't call out harry reid on that. were you ab

in fact, robert rector put it this way, i believe, he said, everyone who would be fwiven amnesty under this, the 11 million that i think is 20 million or more, their only claim to all these welfare benefits an the benefits of living in american society and civilization is, their only claim is that they broke our law. so the definition of amnesty, mr. speaker, is this, to grant someone amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. . that's what amnesty is. the proponents of the 844-page bill, the gang of eight in the senate and secret committee in the house, they understand that. that's why they keep denying their bill is amnesty. there is no rational analysis that says otherwise, mr. speaker. and so i urge the american people through my counsel with you in this speech to take a good look at the representative-elector study, heritage -- the representative-elector -- the rector study, the heritage foundation did it, dated may 6, 2013, that good study will inform a lot of americans. we are going to have another immigration debate. and i'm

and i'd ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record the rocket rector d robert rector report and ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. then i wanted to ask the question of mr. amador, the bill prohibits an employer from checking current employees unless they check all current employees. so let me suggest that if you had a national restaurant burger chain and you had in one or more of the locations you had reasonable suspicion that a high percentage or even any of your work force was working unlawfully, under this e-verify bill how would you go about doing your due diligence as a citizen to verify those employees if you had that administrative burden of all the employees in the nation as ms. blitz -- b blitstein has said? >> i know she reported on it a little bit. when the obama administration continued the policy of the bush administration requiring federal contractors to reverify the entire work force, the u.s. chamber of commerce filed a lawsuit. they have since lost that lawsuit, but it was costing millions of dollars to reverif

and that's off of heritage foundation's report, robert rector's report, which many of you are familiar. with it destroys the rule of law. and the rule of law is an ep sensual pillar of american exceptionalism. many people come here because we have equal justice under the law. if we reward people who break the law, they are unlikely to raise their children to respect it. the rule of law, at least with regard to immigration, would be destroyed and the promise of the law being enforced from this point forward, i don't know how we can listen to that with a straight face. we remember the 1986 amnesty act, and there were six after that smaller ones that didn't make the news so much, and they were promises for the next group that would be amnestied. this group of 11.3 million they're calculating will be bigger than they say, that always has been the case. it was roughly going to be a million in 1986. it became three million in 1986. this number will be larger, it's predicted to be 33 million by the time you add in legal and illegal and i think that number perhaps grose from there. the assimil

not a single year out of all those years, and that's off of heritage foundation's report, robert rector's report which many of you are familiar with. it destroys the rule of law. and the rule of law is an essential pill hard of american exceptional limb -- pillar of american exceptionalism. if we reward people who break the law, they're unlikely to raise their children to respect it. the rule of law, at least with regard to immigration, it would be destroyed. and the promise that the law would be enforced from this point forward, i don't know how we can listen to that with a straight face. we remember the '86 amnesty act, and each amnesty act since then -- there were about six after that, smaller ones that didn't meet the news so much -- and they also were the promises for the next group that would be amnestied. this group of 11.3 million that they're calculating will be bigger than they say. that always has been the case. it was roughly going to be a million in 1986. it became three million in 1986. this number will be larger. it's predicted to be something like 33 million by the time yo

we have robert rector, from the heritage foundation, a con seventive research think tank based in washington, d.c., three decades of experience studying poverty, welfare programs, and immigration in america, heavily involved in the 1996 welfare reform bill and examines the cost of welfare to u.s. taxpayers and impact on the strength of families. he's also focused on how to fix america's broken immigration system today and last time congress considered a broad overall in 2007 looking at the long term fiscal cost to taxpayers of legalizing the estimated 11 million imimrants living unlawfully in the united states. the recent paper concludes the lifetime fiscal deficit created by the program would be 6.3 trillion. he holds a bachelor degree from the college of william and mary and master's degree in political science from johns hopkins university. now i would like to turn it over to our panelists for brief opening sometimes, and then we'll have an interesting discussion about where they agree and disagree on the costs and benefits of immigration reform. start with you. >> okay. the basis of my a

senator flake and al cato and others have looked at, for example, robert rector's work, and rector was one of the primary drivers of welfare reform in the 1990's, one of the foremost experts on social policy and even just today or it may have been last night, another scholar at cato took a look at robert's study and he said, this is a great examination of the size they have -- size of the welfare state. and he's right. that's the primary problem. that's where we would perhaps distinguish ourselves from our libertarian friends. we agree with milton friedman, he wrote, in the "wall street journal," that you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. that's the real problem. we need to get at reforming the welfare state. host: we're talking with heritage foundation's derrick morgan, we'll take your phone calls on this, we have a fourth line for illegal immigrant this is morning. we'll get your phone calls in a minute. first i want you to respond to douglas holds, a republican, american action forum president. he's done his own economic analysis and he calls it an economic opportunity f

. $6.3 trillion according to robert rector of the heritage foundation. so mr. speaker, i hope that there are a lot of people that realize the magny tured of this colossal proposed mistake. and i hope that the good judgment and the constitutional sound think theaninged good conscience that comes from the american people as manifested in the united states senate and house of representatives and that we will put an end to any kind of an idea of an amnesty bill and restore the rule of law and restore american opportunity and do what's good for ameri. that's our job, that's our oath. it's a patriotic thing to do. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to